Live data from Hacker News

Welcome to the ad-free internet

economist.com

81–90 of 334 posts

Re: Welcome to the ad-free internet

#81
Not directly mentioned in the article (although this is essentially what the article is about), but it’s struck me lately as very dissonant that I pay for Spotify and Youtube in order to avoid the ads, and then still have to fast forward through the sponsorship and ad reads that the content creator records into their product.

It’s a fair price to get someone’s content, and I know the revenue from that is much higher than what they’ll get from the platform’s ad share. Yet still it is irritating. The majority of content I consume idly I would never pay for. So again, a fair bargain I suppose.

There are content creators whom I’d happily support directly for the sake of the value I ascribe to their content, not just to remove their ads, but they don’t offer the option. I understand there are many reasons for any given creator why an ad supported business model may be preferable/simpler/earn more. And maybe this is just a shift in the creator economy which is more slowly dispersing than I personally would expect.

But truly from a superfan or consumer point of view, I end up valuing the paid podcasts I subscribe to on Spotify which are ad free over many pieces of content that I arguably enjoy more but are forced to skip through their ads.

I’ve paid for Ben Thompson’s content for almost 10 years now, and listen to his podcast via Spotify. I remember when he said he’d never put his podcast on Spotify, but their private/paid feed feature got him to jump and Im so glad I got to delete an extra app because of it. I’ve been listening to the McElroy brothers’ stable of podcasts for just as long, but am irritated every time I have to skip through the ad reads. I do support them through the podcast network they are a part of, Maximum Fun, but I honestly pay less than I could because I know that it doesn’t directly support them (it supports the network which in turn supports them). That’s ironic because really I should give _more_ because of that fact, but the indirection makes me uninterested in paying much above the minimum.

I love both these podcasts, and their ability to monetize are clearly different based on the product each are producing. At the end of the day though there is (in my experience) a value add provided through Ben Thompson’s business model of directly charging me for the good.

Please don’t read this as a typical HN “why doesn’t the industry cater specifically to me and the very narrow niche I inhabit”, I’m aware of many of the incentives and challenges inherent in these different business models. But as of late, with so many content creators giving the option to pay them directly in exchange for ad free experiences, paying for an ad free service like Spotify but being unable to skip ads from the creators themselves has started to really stick out to me.

I don’t know what a solution would be, nor do I look forward to paying for the majority of content I consume. In fact Im fairly confident that there is no good solution exactly because nobody wants to pay for most content and people’s time is not free. In a world where increasingly folks are putting up paywalls for content consumers see as differentiated, it starts to look more and more bleak on the ad supported side of that wall.

Re: Welcome to the ad-free internet

#84

Does anyone know why there doesn't exist a micro-transaction capability to buy one marginal ad-free item at a time? E.g. buy just this Economist article for $0.25 rather than subscribing for the whole month? I know there are significant issues with micro-transaction cost but I figure you could set up a little token service with minimum cash-in and cash-out amounts (say $5). Do companies like the Economist crunch the…

So besides the problems with transaction costs, there is the problem that the businesses selling these things would much, much rather have you pay a subscription than a one time cost. They would rather risk people willing to pay the one time cost not paying anything, then lose out on recurring revenue from a subscriber who might have preferred to pay a la carte instead.

Re: Welcome to the ad-free internet

#86

Doesn't this end up spiralling, though? As we've seen with Netflix, nothing stops the service from adding ads to a subscription feed. Sooner or later the pressure to grow revenues is going to force Meta to do ads on their subscription accounts (especially since they can charge a premium on those ads). Then they introduce "premium" subscription accounts with no ads, then those get ads, then there's the "excelsior" sub…

Yeah, this is one of the problems with for-profit.

Even if the company could make the bottom line with only a subscription fee. Someone is willing to pay a lot for visibility, and they pay more the less other ads there is. So the paper/service/blog accepts one well paying ad. And nobody minds because it was just one ad.

But look at that money, let's do another ad, just once. But this isn't the first and only so they pay a little less. So maybe we could put in two ads, I mean they are relevant and nobody cares. And suddenly ads are a commodity but you already have a ad-selling department and people willing to pay a little...

I mean I don't think ads are exclusively bad, but it's just the nature of the system that they will get worse until they are bad.

Re: Welcome to the ad-free internet

#87
post #2

Ironic that this article is paywalled. Here's a non-paywalled link: https://archive.is/0C0RQ

Also disabling JS works.

And if that is a hassle my little hack to selectively view pages with js disabled works great here https://noscript.it/?p=0#https://www.economist.com/business/...

Re: Welcome to the ad-free internet

#88

Does anyone know why there doesn't exist a micro-transaction capability to buy one marginal ad-free item at a time? E.g. buy just this Economist article for $0.25 rather than subscribing for the whole month? I know there are significant issues with micro-transaction cost but I figure you could set up a little token service with minimum cash-in and cash-out amounts (say $5). Do companies like the Economist crunch the…

Isn't this what Brave attempted to do with BAT attention tokens?

Re: Welcome to the ad-free internet

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a space that my company operates in and we will hopefully provide this service in the future. First, publishers want more than what consumers are willing to pay per article, the credit card companies charge too much (even with special micro pricing we've negotiated) and no one has a market big enough to reasonably get $xx per month into a wallet from a massive audience. Google had tried something similar with…

Hmm interesting. But it seems like one industry that has gotten this down is p*rnography? OnlyFans seems to be an enormous processor of micro-transactions for marginal content. Maybe people are just more willing to open wallets for that type of content? It's interesting to see that even press "rebels" like Substack use a subscription model. You could argue this benefits writers with steady streams of incomes, and tha…

> But it seems like one industry that has gotten this down is p*rnography? OnlyFans seems to be an enormous processor of micro-transactions for marginal content

The impression I've gotten from articles about OnlyFans is that the business model consists of a mix of monthly subscriptions and pay-per-view content on top of subscriptions, neither of which are typically priced at the levels that would be described as microtransactions. Is that not the case?

Re: Welcome to the ad-free internet

#90

Doesn't this end up spiralling, though? As we've seen with Netflix, nothing stops the service from adding ads to a subscription feed. Sooner or later the pressure to grow revenues is going to force Meta to do ads on their subscription accounts (especially since they can charge a premium on those ads). Then they introduce "premium" subscription accounts with no ads, then those get ads, then there's the "excelsior" sub…

Large companies which have monopolies or near monopolies (Google with Youtube for example) will unfortunately likely go this way as they can get away with bullying users a lot before they are in any danger of losing market share.
Post reply on HN